About your Search

20130223
20130223
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
was meandering toward ending the war in afghanistan and allowing the pentagon and you have to remember when you're looking at the pentagon, you're looking at an institution that has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur. it takes the pentagon a long time to put something together, such as a timetable for withdrawal. all obama has to do, and i know it is not that simple, but i would look at the gorbachev experience. he came in 1985, he gave a speech in 1986 denouncing afghanistan as a bleeding wound. he had secretly told schultz at the military was going to get one year to turn it around. and that they wouldn't be able to. he announced a timetable, and then he was gone and 89. we need to do something similar, the military had its chances, we had 11 commanders in afghanistan in 11 years, take a look at this book by the general, which devotes a lot of attention to this. that is not a war where we can be successful. that is not in the military we have. there is no military that has ever been successful with counterinsurgency. not only that, but they have an ally in pakistan where we survived with bil
official in the pentagon told me it sounds like having a fought crime from 1984. that would be a problem. theythought crime from 1984. that would be a problem. they did decide to import conspiracy and civilian law to military law. it is easy to prove as opposed to things they are conspiring to do more have done. for the same reason it has been disfavored as a war crime. the nuremberg tribunal rejected conspiracy conviction for the most part. the rationale is just that the nature of armed conflict is doing things in a group. since that is what the entire endeavour is, to unmask coordinated violence, making one participant guilty of the act of all the other participants would be too broad. that is the rationale. but what happened with the twenty-first century military commission project was several civilian crime such as conspiracy were imported into this military code but it raise problems from the get go because these military officers knew that that was not really a war crime. they had been taught was not, like mutilating bodies or the other things that traditionally have been war crime
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)